|
Number of references |
17 |
|
Geographical spread |
East Africa 4, West Africa 3, Central Africa 1, Asia 7, Pacific 1, Theoretical 3, Caribbean 1 |
|
Number of references dealing with fisheries |
8 |
|
Number of references based on empirical research about the causes/impacts of poverty |
12 |
|
Yearly spread |
Pre 1980 0, 1980-1990 5, 1991-2000 8, Post 2000 4 |
6.2.1 Vulnerability
Turnover among the poor is often extremely rapid (Baulch and McCulloch 1998, McCulloch and Calandrino, 2001). This means that it is very important to conceptualize the difference between vulnerability and poverty, and that one might argue that "vulnerability" is in fact a more important concept in the Livelihoods Approach than "poverty" per se.
Vulnerability means defencelessness, insecurity, and exposure to risk, shocks and stress, and perhaps more than poverty is linked with net assets (Chambers, 1989). This perhaps explains why the five main asset types as identified in the Livelihoods Approach are generally well covered in the literature on vulnerability and coping mechanisms, if not specifically, then at least by inference. Some variables can be important correlates of poverty status but have little impact on entries into (vulnerability) or exits out of (coping mechanisms) poverty (Baulch and McCulloch, 1998). Some factors are important correlates of poverty and of both entry into and exit from poverty. Other factors may have asymmetric effects on movements in and out of poverty.
While a number of authors agree that dependency ratios, household size and geographic variables are important correlates of poverty (Baulch and McCulloch, 1998), vulnerability is more closely linked to the following factors:
1. Ill-health and malnutrition (Evans, 1989; Pryer, 1989 and Corbett, 1989). Of particular concern are those vulnerable to accidents or poor health because of the knock-on impacts through delayed treatment, the costs of treatment and loss of earnings. A key asset of most poor people is their bodies. The poorer people are the more they depend on their bodies for physical work, and the more vulnerable their bodies are likely to be. Accidents are a key determinant of impoverishment, but seldom counted. Evidence suggests that the health and work of the breadwinner is a key factor in preventing poverty.
2. Fluctuations in natural resources e.g. low and uncertain rainfall (Taal, 1989), yearly and seasonal changes in fish stock levels (Sarch and Allison, 2001), monthly/lunar changes in the ability to catch fish (Bahiigwa, 2001).
3. Price fluctuations.
4. Variable access to markets (Lewis et al 1996).
5. Extreme weather conditions such as hurricanes (Chakalall, 1999) and cyclones (Deb and Alam, 1994).
6. Household size. There is evidence (Goh et al., 2001) to suggest that larger households are more protected from shortfalls in consumption (due to income sources being more diversified, resource-pooling being more effective, and economies of scale in consumption). Other authors (Baulch and McCulloch, 1998) indicate that large household size increases the chance of entry into poverty and reduces the likelihood of a rapid exit
7. Theft or loss of fishing gear (Bahiigwa, 2001).
8. Pond security and disease in inland fish farming (Lewis et al., 1996).
9. the extent of patron-client relationships (Lewis et al., 1996).
10. Female-headed households are not found to be more vulnerable (Baulch and McCulloch, 1998; Goh 2001)
Vulnerability lacks a well-developed theory, and accepted indicators and methods of measurement. As a result it often appears difficult to define who are the most vulnerable until they have entered poverty. However, most authors are in agreement that vulnerability appears to be increasing (Chambers, 1989, Swift, 1989; Taal, 1989; Sarch and Allison, 2001; Andersson and Ngazi, 1998; Geheb and Binns,1997). A number of reasons are suggested and include:
a) greater involvement in market economies and transactions;
b) reduced fish stock levels (from overfishing);
c) a decline in patron-client obligations;
d) declining support from extended family;
e) rising costs of contingencies (dowries, weddings, medical costs);
f) sale or loss of tangible assets means there is no ability to build them up again.
6.2.2 Coping mechanisms
Coping mechanisms can be divided into those that are ex ante risk management measures seeking to reduce vulnerability and prevent entry into poverty, and those that are ex post coping mechanisms that attempt to facilitate a move out of poverty. The variety and number of both ex ante and ex post coping strategies demonstrated in the literature are considerable, and are testament to the considerable ingenuity of the poor, and potentially poor, in both fishing and non-fishing communities. Strategies are shown to be complex and diverse and vary by region, community, social group, household, gender, age, season and time in history.
Ex ante risk management mechanisms include: the use of different cropping patterns, storage of food, investment in livestock (particularly important in prevention of entry into poverty, (Bahiigwa, 2001; Geheb and Binns, 1997)), diversification of assets, early warning systems and advice on how to prepare vessels and gear for minimum losses e.g. for hurricanes (Chakalall, 1999), development of patron-client relationships which minimise transaction costs in the absence of insurance, credit and perfect market information (Lewis et al., 1996), remittances by family members working away from household (ODG, 2001), and better education. Of note is that people may choose to spend surpluses on assets that appear to be non-productive e.g. housing, education, health (Heyer, 1989) as such assets may be beneficial from a preventative point of view in reducing vulnerability to poverty.
Ex post coping mechanisms include: debt/credit/loans (Deb and Alam, 1994; Goh et al., 2001), additional cultivation, expansion of fishing effort (hours and areas fished, Gehen and Binns, 1997), additional labouring, employment off-farm (for farmers) and off-water (for fishermen) e.g. switching livelihoods (Sarch and Allison, 2001; Andersson and Ngazi, 1998; Geheb and Binns, 1997), gathering of wild foods, mortgaging and selling assets, begging, theft, illegal fishing activity and non-compliance with gear, area and effort regulations (Bahiigwa 2001), migration and resettlement (Sarch and Allison, 2001; Haakonsen, 1992; Geheb and Binns, 1997), reduced consumption (Chambers, 1989; Goh 2001), deferring medical treatment, exploiting common property resources, mutual support through community and kinship ties, and sale of products into different markets e.g. analysis of the marketing chain in Tanzania showed that traders overcome seasonal oversupply in the rainy season by sale to markets for poultry feed, and export to Congo (Gibbon, 1997).
The difference between poverty and vulnerability means that programmes that seek to reduce income poverty should not be the same as those that seek to reduce vulnerability, as there is often a trade-off. For example, borrowing and investing can reduce income poverty, but such debt may make households more vulnerable.
The movement of people in an out of poverty mentioned above has important implications for policy, as highlighted by Baulch and McCulloch (1998). Firstly you may not always be trying to help the same group of "poor". Secondly you need to know what the key determinants of transition are (in and out) so as to focus policy on these areas. Thirdly, if spells in poverty are short, this may require policy measures which suggest safety nets, credit and insurance schemes, while extended spells of poverty point to policies such as land reform, education etc that improve the assets and entitlements of the poor. And fourthly since the correlates of poverty status and poverty transitions are not the same, policy interventions that help the poor may be dealing with the symptoms rather than the cause.
Given the wide range of coping mechanisms, their relative successes, and the different reasons for vulnerability, each group and situation must be treated individually. It is therefore difficult to generalise about policy between different countries, regions, and even villages. However, it does seem clear that diversification of assets appears to be very important for reducing vulnerability.
Of particular interest is the fluid movement, in both directions, between those involved in both fishing and farming, and the switching of livelihoods as an ex post coping mechanism (Sarch and Allison, 2001; Andersson and Ngazi, 1998; Geheb and Binns, 1997; Bahiigwa, 2001). Switching of livelihoods suggests that policies to combat vulnerability and poverty should not be sector specific, and should seek to promote flexibility.
This is important from a conflict perspective, and also from the point of view of fisheries management, as explained by Sarch and Allison (2001) who suggest that fish stocks in Africa's inland waters are climate driven (seasonally and inter-seasonally) and cannot be stabilised by conventional fisheries management measures. Failure to recognise this can undermine livelihood strategies (for example if TURFs are promoted for idealised constructs of a "community" where livelihoods are based entirely on fishing). Management measures that constrain access to fish in productive periods constrain incomes that can be saved, and may serve little conservation purpose. Sarch and Allison show that the establishment of community-management measures on other lakes constrain the ability of fishermen to use migration as a key coping-strategy. Around the River Niger, fishing is used for the accumulation of capital and as a safety net, while cultivation meets subsistence needs. This generates conflict between permanent fishermen and those seeking to fish in times of drought, and has implications for management of fisheries that tries to restrict entry and is based on the idea of optimal catch rates.
A number of other key implications for policy are provided by Chambers (1989).
1. There is a need to monitor vulnerability more closely and act on asset indicators.
2. Thought should be given to putting floors under the vulnerable e.g. food for work schemes, guaranteed markets, cheap food.
3. Provision of effective health services, free or at low cost may be particularly effective - again, this emphasizes the need not to be sector specific.
4. The measures that the vulnerable chose to employ to improve their coping strategies may be of more use than externally imposed schemes
The generalizability and usefulness of any research depends on how representative the study sample is, which in turn depends on the initial sampling methods and the sample size. While the studies reviewed generally appeared to be methodologically sound, the apparent large differences in vulnerability and coping mechanisms between sectors, countries, regions etc, mean that it is difficult to claim any generalizable findings in addition to those presented in the text above.
It appears that:
a) very little, if any comparative research has been done to examine the relative vulnerability of those in the fishing sector compared to those in the farming and other sectors, that
b) much more work on vulnerability and coping mechanisms has been conducted in sectors other than fisheries, and that
c) little comparative work exists to understand differences between regions and the reasons for such differences.
There are a huge number of areas of research that would therefore help with our understanding of vulnerability and coping mechanisms, and which in turn could have significant policy implications. A number of potential avenues and ideas for further research are therefore presented which may be of use. Each one could focus on fisheries, the difference between fisheries and other sectors, and/or the differences between different regions:
1. Which, and how many, of the numerous coping mechanisms are available to fishers? For example, coping strategies include the use of common property resources (Beck, 1989). Does access to common property resources differ for fishers and non-fishers? In addition, does this imply that farmers can fish if their crop yields are low (e.g. Philippines), whereas fishermen may find it harder to farm because of a lack of tenure of land, hence the widespread use of migration in fishing communities? Does the desire of different groups to invest surpluses in "productive" assets differ, and if so why?
2. Is fishing more "risky" than farming or other sectors. Research could look at both the extent and frequency of shocks and stress and their impacts on the five key assets as defined in the SLA. For example:
Are catches of fish less variable between seasons than agricultural production?
Are prices more variable and unpredictable?
Are there more bottlenecks to production in agriculture (e.g. seed, fertiliser, irrigation water)?
Is fishing more risky in terms of personal safety and accidents?
What is the impact for farmers (in terms of assets and the importance of market prices) of having to sell when the crop is ready, compared to fishers who can fish all year round?
How does the minimum physical asset base compare e.g. the cost of a boat and gear, compared to the cost of land and agricultural inputs, and are physical assets more at risk in fisheries (e.g. cyclones may result in boat loss for fishermen whereas just loss of crops, not land, for farmers)?
How does access to markets (and market information) and food security compare for the two sectors?
How does access to claims on government, family support and the international aid agencies differ between sectors e.g. poor people in cities (non-fishers), may be less vulnerable because they have better access to exercising claims on government for preferential assistance (Swift J. 1989), but perhaps more vulnerable because of lower claims on family support and natural assets?
Are fishermen more vulnerable to certain kinds of shocks e.g. cyclones because of living in the coastal zone, how often do these shocks occur relative to other ones e.g. lack of rainfall for farmers, and what is the relative impacts on assets and poverty of different shocks?
3. How has vulnerability changed over time for fishing and non-fishing activities, and why?
4. Development and testing of vulnerability indicators.
5. Assessment of the modes, costs and benefits of prevention rather than cure i.e. reducing vulnerability rather than enabling recovery.
6. The effects of civil disorder on vulnerability and coping strategies e.g. on the economic environment, and household strategies.
7. What policies are most appropriate to support coping mechanisms and strategies to reduce vulnerability in different sectors and areas.
8. Which of the variety of coping strategies employed are actually the most successful and why? e.g. Geheb and Binns (1997) demonstrate how plot fragmentation, drought and low investment have led to poor crop yields for fishermen seeking to farm following reduced catch levels in Lake Victoria.
9. What is the impact of accidents and ill health occurring to the main breadwinner on the household as a whole. In particular, what are going to be the likely impacts of HIV/AIDS on the vulnerability of fishing households. As of the end of 2000, there were a total of 36.1 million people living with HIV/AIDS in the world and in that year alone 5.3 million people were infected. As suggested at a symposium as part of the Sixth Asian Fisheries Forum, November 2001 (ICLARM 2002), epidemiological studies on HIV/AIDS by occupation show that fishermen are among the group most prone to infection. In Tanzania in Africa, fishers were five times more likely to die from AIDS than agricultural workers.
